The State argued that if the High Court’s approach were to be followed, this would give rise to what they described as a strong, almost overriding, presumption that permissions for developments causing emissions should be refused and that this would have grave and far-reaching implications for many important public interest projects.
The Supreme Court, in upholding the High Court judgment did so on narrower grounds. It held that the 2015 Act and amendments “are of real importance and effect”. They “demonstrate a clear legislative intention to impose legal obligations on all relevant bodies constituting the machinery of the State”. It is more than a procedural obligation. It is a legal standard which must be complied with by a relevant body, and if necessary, enforced by a court. The Court found that the consistency obligation is certainly stronger than a “have regard to” obligation but is more flexible and less demanding than a “comply with” obligation. Therefore, the obligation of consistency does not dictate a single result, and a range of decisions may be said to be consistent with the s. 15 objectives. The Court clarified that an obligation to perform a function consistent with certain matters, is more than a process obligation. It does not simply dictate what steps must be taken before a function is performed. It is addressed to the outcome, which must be capable of being demonstrated to be consistent with an identified standard.
The judgment also acknowledges that the concept of net zero contemplates a balance between projects, and can encompass some which may be emission generating, but are of particular economic, social, and community advantage, and other projects.
Taking this approach, the Supreme Court went on to say that section 15 will likely be less decisive for individual planning decisions than it will be for the actions of other relevant bodies. This is because climate objectives are already woven into the planning process to a significant degree.
The judgment brings clarity and is a positive and important outcome for the renewable energy sector in Ireland. The Supreme Court has provided a strong interpretation of what section 15 of the Climate Act mean and it must be applied by public bodies to carry out their functions in a manner that is consistent with the climate law and contributes to reducing emissions. However the obligation to do so is somewhat balanced. A public body can only perform such functions as it is required or permitted to perform by statute. Section 15 does not, therefore, expand the existing functions of a relevant body or create new functions. It is the existing functions of a relevant body that must be performed in a manner consistent with the s. 15 objectives, in so far as practicable. Section 15 therefore takes effect within the limits of those functions.
